WPCRL/348/2023 of ANUBHAV MITTAL Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY HOME, DEHRADUN

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Writ Petition No.348 of 2023

Anubhav Mittal

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others ….Respondents

Present:-

Mr. Ramji Shirvastava, Advocate for the petitioners. Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, A.G.A. with Ms. Shiwali Joshi, Brief Holder for the State.

Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, A.G.A. with Ms. Shiwali Joshi,

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR No.0318 of 2022, dated 27.11.2022, under Section 420, 406 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Dalanwala District- Dehradun with related reliefs.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, the informant was persuaded by co-accused Shweta Sharma that it is the petitioner and co-accused, who could finance Rs. 80 crores for his hotel project. The co-accused, Shweta Sharma, in fact, arranged meeting in Delhi, where the petitioner and co-accused met the informant and assured that they would help him to get Rs. 80 crores loan, and, thereafter, he was persuaded to give Rs. 30 lakhs as

security.

The FIR also records that, in fact, the petitioner and co-accused visited the hotel site of the informant. The informant paid Rs. 20 lakhs by way of online transactions to the co-accused. But, thereafter, neither the loan was sanctioned nor the money, paid by the informant, was returned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not persuaded the informant to deliver any property; the money was not deposited in any account held by the petitioner; the petitioner has no role in the entire deal; he apprehends his arrest by the investigating officer without following the mandatory provisions of law.

5. It is petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If an FIR discloses commission of any offences, generally, no interference is warranted. Here in the instant case, it is the categorical case of the informant that co-accused Shweta Sharma persuaded the informant that she would help the informant to secure Rs. 80 crores loan for his hotel project and in that process, meeting was arranged with the petitioner and co-accused, who assured the informant that they would help the informant to get Rs. 80 crores loan. They visited the site of the informant. In that belief, according to the FIR, the informant gave Rs. 20 lakhs to the co-accused.

6. The FIR definitely discloses the commission of offences. It is an offence of cheating. It is argued that no offence under Section 406 IPC is made out. This Court , at this stage, may not record as to which offence, as such, is made out from bare perusal of the FIR. Suffice to say, the FIR discloses commission of offences. There are categorical allegations against the petitioner. In fact, according to the allegations in the FIR, it is the petitioner, who also assured the informant that they would help the informant to get loan. They visited the site of the hotel, also.

7. Insofar as the apprehension of arrest is concerned, the petitioner is free to seek such remedy against his apprehension, as is permissible under law. That may not be ground to entertain such writ petition.

8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed, at the stage of admission itself.

Ravi Bisht

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 27.02.2023